Talk:Denver/Archive 2006

This is an archive of past discussions for the period 2006.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Feature article status?

So I really think the Denver page has improved greatly over the last year or so. Maybe we should think about making it good enough for the front page. First we could start with a sort of peer review of the page by the regular contributers to it, then we can get an actual peer review, and then see if we can nominate for a feature article and hopefully get it.

What do you all think? Should/can we do this? Vertigo700 05:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The article is well worthy I think. However I agree with the idea for a cuisine addition to the article, more on awards Denver has recieved, and that Larimer Square pic would be cool. We could plug the city a little more before it's front page. But besides that, I think we should do it. I'm going to do a little research on my own. -User:Editor19841

That new marquee for sports teams looks good. What does anyone think about my Larimer Square idea? Editor19841 00:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Vertigo700 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I nominated it for Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW so that we can get some additional collaborators to improve this page. Please vote for Denver so it can become the collaboration of the week. Vertigo700 17:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here here! Editor19841 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the Peña pic. I was not logged in apparently, or the computer fouled it up. Editor19841 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We are actually tied for 1st on the Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW board. If you haven't voted yet, please do so, and next week we could be the collaboration of the week, and be a part of a massive improvement drive. Vertigo700 16:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Denver resident needed

Useful information : [1]

You may want to re-do the climate section to be a bit more like Salt Lake City, UT.

Example:

1st paragraph contain general like average temperature, average date of first snowfall and last date, average precip, date of last average frost and first, humidity average (try to keep it to averages not extremes)
2nd paragraph winter descrip (contain storm patterns, how many days on average below 32 high)
3rd paragraph spring (storm patterns)
4th paragraph summers (monsoon, how many average days above 90)
5th paragraph falls (storm flows, large temp. drop)

144.35.254.12 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Denver population (1890)

So, looking at [2], you can see that Denver's population indeed made it the second largest city in the west, behind only San Francisco. Of course that depends on precisely what your definition of the west is. I made a longitude distinction just to be accurate, as Denver was behind Omaha, Kansas City, and St. Louis in population in 1890 to be considered second west of the Mississippi. However, by the turn of the century, Denver surpassed Omaha in population and we could therefore say something like west of the Missouri River, or west of 95° longitude. I am just wondering if we could word it better. Any thoughts? Vertigo700 01:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Let me think this over, and get back with you on the thought. Editor19841 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't favor picking an arbitrary line of longitude, as they could be chosen conveniently to make any city the "second largest" or even largest of a certain area. The Missouri River wouldn't work either, as Kansas City and Omaha are on the same side of it as Denver. It's difficult to separate Denver from St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Omaha, as they are all within a single region historically known as the Louisiana Territory, which is what made the Mississippi the important boundary that it is still in our consciousness. An earlier important boundary that once separated East from West in people's imaginations was the Appalachian chain, resulting in places such as Michigan and Illinois once being known as the Northwest, and places such as Alabama and Mississippi as the Southwest. Of course our definition of the West has shifted further west with time, but between the Rockies and the Mississippi there was never as important a boundary as either the Appalachians or the Mississippi, hence the difficulty in separating Denver from its cousins across the Plains. In today's consciousness, regional boundaries of the U.S. are anything but standard, but when they need to be delineated, they usually follow state boundaries. I would consider stating that, in year X, Denver became the largest city in the Mountain States, or, more clumsily, the second largest in the Mountain States and Pacific States. Those terms at least exclude all states that may be considered part of the Midwest. A more common way to separate a city from others in order to enhance its superlative claim is to say "___-est between City X and City Y" or "west of City X." In this case, "west of Omaha" would suffice, or "west of Kansas City" if you use 1900 instead of 1890. --Bruinbrain 08:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous Denverites

With over 35 people on the Famous Denverites section, I thought it was about time to make them have their own page and remove the unwieldiness from the page. If people feel differently, then please express that here. The new page is List of famous Denverites. Vertigo700 03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Support --MattWright (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The list was getting long, but would anyone be opposed to perhaps having several key names remain on this page and providing a link to the new page as well? If no one agrees, I'm fine with the current situation. Editor19841 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is how to pick some and not others -- it opens it up to everyone putting their "favorite" person with a Denver connection on the list. I would support a shorter list of those who actually made a significant impact in the Denver area and are associated with Denver (such as Federico Peña or John Elway). The vast majority of people on that list seem to be people who once lived here briefly, or were born here. I don't see the point of including them on a page about Denver. Who would you recommend? --MattWright (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I left Peña's picture just to leave something there, but I have the concern people will all want to put their favorites there, especially new users who don't know any better. Vertigo700 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You both raise good points. In my opinion we should probably post only those who have national and/or international connections; political figures, athletes, etc.. I don't think we should leave the section open, or with just Peña's pic up there (don't get me wrong, we should keep the picture either way). Anyone agree? Editor19841 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should pick prominent people who actually lived in Denver for a long time. John Elway, Peña, Webb, Dianne Reeves, Vance Kirkland, Neal Cassady and Madhuri Dixit, maybe a few others, but no longer than 10. Vertigo700 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That's what I was thinking. Editor19841 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cable TV?

I removed the following: "Denver is also known as the birth place of Cable TV, Cable pionneer Bill Danials lived in Denver for many years, Denver is also home to the Cable Center, It is located on the DU Campus in SE Denver."

Aside from being a very poorly written sentence, I could find nothing supporting it in the Wikipedia article on Cable TV and have never heard or read anything anywhere else about Denver having a place in the birth of cable television. Onyourside 11:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Denver is an important place in Cable. TCI and Liberty Media were both founded in the Denver area, but I agree with leaving that sentence out because it's not really accurate to say "Denver is also known as the birth place of Cable TV, and should probably be written better in general. Vertigo700 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editor19841 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoever added the much needed bit on the G7 Summit, thanks. Editor19841 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I live in Denver and attend DU and there is a Cable Center located on the northern end of campus here, though I don't know much about it so I'm not sure how its linked to the history of cable. However, as far as the fact of whether or not it exists, it does... not sure if it should be in the article, though. --The Way 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Population Figures

For those eager to express that Denver's population is growing and that it is (supposedly) surpassing other cities in size, please note that the U.S. Census Bureau is the only source that provides official population statistics that allow U.S. cities to be compared with one another. It is fine to mention estimates from other entities, like the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), but these are unofficial and can't be used to make comparions. Does the DRCOG release population figures for Seattle or Boston? No, it does not. So we cannot use DRCOG information to claim that Denver has passed Seattle and Boston and jumped from the 25th to the 23rd-largest city. I have edited the article to emphasize the latest official U.S. Census population figures, as this is the most meaningful information. New Census estimates will be released in July - we will see then if, in an "apples-to-apples" comparison, there are more Denverites than Bostonians or Seattleites. Denvoran 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Denvoran. If you want to use the numbers fine. I would even be fine with people saying something like "According to DRCOG, the population of Denver is X, which depending on the growth of other cities could make Denver the X-most populous city in the nation." However, stating these things as fact, and editing the rankings of Denver on the page is simply not accurate based on the available information. For simplicities sake, lets just keep it with the census information, which is used nationally for comparison. The reality is that they are one of the few organizations that can really say if this comparison in accurate. Vertigo700 23:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought this issue would soon come up: I think we should post the DRCOG figures, as they are the most recent, and, as a compromise, we should post the Census figures from 2004 (noting the growth). If anyone is opposed to this, please speak now. I agree with Vertigo700; we do not need an editing war on a page which has so much potential to be one of wiki's best articles. Let's make peace with this issue, put it to rest, and get back to making this article better than it is today. No harm, no foul, allright? When new population figures come from the Census in July, we'll post those at that time. Agreed? Editor19841 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The DRCOG figures are already posted in the second paragraph, which I am fine with. What people keep changing is the official population figures on the sidebar. I am fine with putting both numbers there with a note saying these are this the unofficial Denver Regional Council of Government est.

The DRCOG figure is already posted in the article - and a compromise is already in place, as the DRCOG and Census figures are both given. But I assume Editor19841 wants the DRCOG figure to be prominently displayed in the infobox. The problem with this is that DRCOG figures are unofficial and can't be compared with the population estimates for other cities (except for Aurora and other metro area cities that DRCOG also makes estimates for). When people using Wikipedia go from city to city and look at the infoboxes, they should get consistent information that comes from a single source and that also agrees with what is given in the List of United States cities by population and other articles where the population of Denver appears. DRCOG estimates are unofficial and intended for use by governments and businesses in the metro area, not for the general reference purposes of a worldwide audience like Wikipedia. The Census estimates are the "most recent" official and comparable figures.
P.S. If the DRCOG estimated that Denver's population had dropped below the Census figure, would we be having this discussion? Why is it so important to report the absolute largest population figure that can possibly be justified? Denvoran 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Denvoran's arguments. Consistency with other wikipedia pages is what we need here. Vertigo700 07:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing consistency on all articles for population figures. My entire point was that the DRCOG figures shouldn't be left out (and they're not). The compromise that is on the page right now will work. For the record, I don't think this argument is really about getting Denver the biggest numbers possible; I think it's about getting the most current. I'm going to leave this alone for now (I suggest the same for everybody). July will bring the latest, most consistent figures to post. Editor19841 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, someone is continuing to change the population of Denver on this page to a number I am not sure I know where its coming from. Even the sourced link provided claiming Denver's population is 581K does not do so. If you go to the actual Excell spreadsheet, the U.S. Census gives you, it states that the population of Denver is 557,917. This the exact same number that the Rocky Mountain News reported only last week (June 21), which can be found at http://cfapp2.rockymountainnews.com/census2000/popCensus.cfm. These numbers are the latest census estimates, only released last week, so I don't understand where newer data showing 2006 is coming from, because the census certainly hasn't provided it, and neither is the sources you are citing on this page. If someone wants to explain the higher number, please do so, but please do not change it unless you give some validity as to why. Vertigo700 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: According to Demographia, Denver/Aurora is the 20th largest metropolitan area. http://www.demographia.com/db-2005migintl.pdf

Music In Denver

The Music in Denver article is really turning out nice, but I get the feeling that even though it's length is less than fitting for merging to this page, that the information displayed in the article should be located under Denver#Music. I know, it seams crazy, but I think the info should be on Denver's main page. Anyone agree, or is this idea to off the wall? Editor19841 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't be a good idea, simply because much of the article is a list and really that is the last thing we need. I would be okay with putting the intro section on this page and then linking to the other article, but I am also fine with leaving it the way it is. Vertigo700 04:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See, the size/list factor was what troubled me about merging the two as well. I think adding the intro to this page would work well for the article. Good idea. Editor19841 21:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists, the article, improving

I think a real problem that is plauging the article is the fact that so much information (lists particularly) has been reverted from the actual main article and given it's own page. Lists of famous Denverites, corporations, details on music and culture, etc. To really improve this article and make it the feature article we think it can be, I think a big step will be merging, at the least, some of the "outsourced" information back onto the actual Denver article, instead of having a million different list pages and important information not here. The idea that Vertigo700 had with the Music in Denver piece, that was a good start. The cuisine and prohibition ideas, what happened? Something bothering me for a while has been the old picture of the skyline. It's the first thing you see when you visit the page! I believe, that it would be within copyright law, to use images of Denver obtained through the City and County of Denver [3], and the photo gallery exibited on the site offers some possible top quality additions to this article. I'm not great at uploading, that's why I haven't produced these images. But I want to know what anyone thinks; agree or disagree? Editor19841 19:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at many other city pages (Boston is a good example), they have separate pages for lists and auxiliary information that would otherwise make the main page too long and clunky. In my opinion, lists look pretty bad in an encyclopedia page of mostly prose, and though they provide good information, readers might be better served by having that on an additional page away from the main article. We are already way above the recommended space for a city page, and at some point we have to think of ways to make the article not only flow better, but to take less time to load. I do agree that we should have an updated skyline picture, but I don't think it's a good idea to take it from Denver's website. I have seen some other pictures taken from the site that have been taken off of wikipedia because of copyright violations, and am honestly unsure of whether we can use them or not. Any lawyers out there to clarify? In the time being, I think the better idea would be for someone to simply take a picture of the Denver skyline. I would volunteer myself, but I am currently not living in Denver, so it will have to be someone who is there and doesn't mind uploading their digital pictures to wikipedia. As for the additional ideas, I really do not have too much time to research and update the cuisine and prohibition sections, but I would definitely support and help edit anyone who did. I will go ahead and add the introduction of music in Denver to the main page though. All in all, I think we are doing great with this page, and really think we are full steam ahead with getting it to feature article status. Good job for that. Vertigo700 21:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but photographs on the city site are almost certainly not legal for wikipedia (see http://www.denvergov.org/jump_site_info.asp). Images (and text) produced by the US government, including most photos taken by government employees as part of their job activities, are public domain but this does not mean any photo on any government site is public domain. I suspect the best route to featured status is to compare the Denver article to articles about other (similarly sized) cities that are already featured, specifically Boston, Massachusetts, Cleveland, Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, San Jose, California, and Seattle, Washington. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I took a photo of the Denver skyline today (from I-25 & Speer) and replaced the outdated one on the article page. The photo I took isn't all that great either and I won't be offended if it is reverted. If anyone has recommendations on a good angle to capture the city from that is easily accessible, let me know and I can snap a better photo. Otherwise, someday I'll head to Coors Field and try to re-create the previous skyline photo. --MattWright (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very good photo, capturing the beautiful skyline and of course the bright blue sky of Denver. I think a great addition or substitution for the photo in the future would be the classical angle taken from City Park near the Museum of Nature and Science. However, I would wait at least a month or so for that photo, so that the grass and trees will be nice and green, and the flowering trees will be blooming. Certainly, a great shot for the future, and also a good one if anyone gets down to making a City Park page. Vertigo700 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The skyline pic looks great. As for the denvergov.org comments; thanks for informing me on the copyright info. Onward! Editor19841 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I no longer live in Denver, so I cannot take the picture myself. But, I think one of the best veiws of Denver comes from I-25 South at about Thornton Parkway. From that spot you can capture all of downtown, the foothills, Mt. Evans, and on a clear day - even Pikes Peak. If a current resident could take that picture, I think it would be the best picture for the top of the article. TwasBrillig 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A job well done

Thanks to everyone who voted for Denver in the USCOTW elections, and Vertigo700 for nominating it in the first place. I think that winning the elections will bring more attention to the article in general, and promote it in preperation for trying out for feature article. Good work to all the editors who've worked on the article. The article is taking shape to becoming one of Wikipedia's best. Editor19841 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

10th largest downtown

I agree with Gellersen that the city's claim of the 10th largest downtown is sort of dubious at least from that website. However, simply typing in 10th largest downtown in Goggle gives you four unrelated sites on the first page claiming that Denver indeed has the 10th largest downtown. One of them, a real estate company's site claims that downtown Denver is the 10th largest in terms of office and retail space, a claim that I can definitely see being true (the site also claims it's 20th in terms of residents, something I can also see being likely) [4]. I had less luck finding a list of the largest downtowns or anything like that, but I do think it's interesting that the 10th largest downtown thing came up a lot in Google, and no other city claimed that. Also interesting was the variety of responses for the "ninth largest downtown, with Atlanta, Houston, and San Antonio coming up as possibilities. I really don't know what this Google searching really proves other than it's not simply the city of Denver claiming it has the 10th largest downtown. If someone wants to do some more in-depth research to clear this question up, I think that would be a great idea. Vertigo700 21:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"10th largest downtown" is problematic at best. I've heard that the DTC, Greenwood Plaza and the south I-25 corridor have about as much office space as downtown Denver. So is it the 9th or 11th largest "downtown" or tied with the "real" downtown Denver for 10th place? Only a portion of it is in Denver though - it's mostly in Greenwood Village and also partly in Centennial. So can we say "Greenwood Village has the 11th largest downtown in the U.S.?" That's pretty much absurd - most people, including me, would not call it a downtown. But then what is a downtown? Are Midtown Manhattan and Lower Manhattan separate "downtowns", or a single downtown? does Brooklyn have a downtown? because Washington, D.C. doesn't allow skyscrapers, is Rosslyn, Virginia, across the river Washington's "downtown"? See how difficult this sort of ranking is? Denvoran 03:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, the distinction is a difficult one to make, but let's take a moment to define it. Take a look a the central business district link and some characteristics began to appear: contains the city's main public buildings, has a distinct land use pattern that differs it from the rest of the settlement, it is a focal point for transportation, it has the tallest buildings, it has the greatest concentration of pedistrians and traffic, it attracts people from outside it's sphere of influence to work and spend money inside, and it has a lot of important retail. While perhaps not all of the characteristics listed on the page are true for Downtown Denver, most of them are. Also, Denver does have a fairly large downtown geographically to a lot of other city's, if you consider it to be defined by the LoDo, Uptown, CBD, and Civic Centre neighborhoods (and maybe even Auraria and Capitol Hill as well). If you compare Denver's downtown with significantly larger cities like Phoenix or San Jose, you do notice that their downtowns are smaller because there office space is much less concentrated than Denver's. Also if we do consider the DTC and I-25 corridor to have almost the same amount of office space, it would be odd to think of that or any other suburban office area a "downtown" because they lack much of the other characteristcs of a CBD (it might have a few, but not as many and probably also not to the same extent). Just some things to consider. Vertigo700 03:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In a practical sense, I'm not sure this is worth debating until and unless someone comes up with a "top ten largest downtowns" list of some sort as a reference. We're certainly not going to invent our own criteria for downtown size. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Some list stuff

Killed the redlinked colleges... Feel free to put them back, but they don't seem particularly noteworthy - even some that have links I'm not sure about. I'm curious about the giant list that is the landmarks section... Any way to make that into an encyclopedia entry and move the list to its own page? It's been mentioned with other lists. EB0und 07:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

need an article

How about Forney Transportation Museum? Chris 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco%2C_California"

Who has the "Wall Street of the West"?

In the article about SF, the city's Montgomery Street is said to be the "Wall Street of the West". However, in this article about Denver, the description below the picture of 17th street says that this place has the nickname. Wikipedia has got to make a decision on who has the Western Wall Street. Back in the late '80s, in descriptions I read about both cities, I learned that each had a financial district with that nickname. So when the 49ers played the Broncos in the Super Bowl, I felt that whoever won the game gets bragging rights for the nickname. I guess Wikipedia should choose San Francisco. -Amit :-)

I think that historically, Denver coined "Wall Street of the West" before San Francisco did, but if both cities use the nickname, there's confliction with the current status of both articles (providing that San Francisco doesn't claim they coined the nickname first, or that Den or SF don't claim to have the only one.). Editor19841 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Population

Where is the 2.8 million figure from? I can only find a CSA with "216,"Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO1",Combined Statistical Area,"2,609,063"," or the metropolitan area with "19740,,"Denver-Aurora, CO1",Metropolitan Statistical Area,"2,330,146","... [5]. 71.213.29.162 19:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's fine... I normally revert changes to numbers like that by anonymous editors when no edit summary is provided, as it is an easy way to vandalize an article in a hard to verify way. We need to figure out the metro area population... The article now references 2,330,146 in the second paragraph, 2,800,000 in the right hand sidebox and 2,179,240 on Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area. None of them link to a specific page verifying the numbers. --MattWright (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2,609,063 is from [6] (2004 estimate for Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area)

2,330,146 is from [7] (2004 estimate for Denver-Aurora United States metropolitan area)

2,830,000 came from this edit - I suspect the number came from http://www.drcog.org (but I can't currently find it there).

2,179,240 is the 2000 US Census number for the Denver-Aurora MSA (same area for which the 2004 estimate is now 2,330,146)

I suggest we use the 2004 US Census estimate for the MSA (not CSA) and remove the 2005 Denver Council of Governments estimate for the city. Any objections? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think using etimate (2,330,146) is fine everywhere, but that Denver-Aurora metropolitan area should also note in the article text the official 2000 US census number. Also, if we put a reference attached to each number, it will make it more verifiable for future editors. --MattWright (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if someone thought that Colorado Springs was in the metropolitan area... The numbers would add up to about 2.8 million, perhaps you could put together a page like Wasatch Front if it is the same urban area? On the Denver page you could cite the 2004 estimate for the MSA but also remark that the urban area is blank with Colorado Springs... I don't know whether Colorado Springs and Denver are connected by urbanized land though... Never been. 71.213.29.162 00:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a pretty long stretch of nothing between Denver and Colorado Springs. The Denver-Boulder corridor is almost entirely urbanized, but including Boulder in the Denver area would likely annoy the Boulderites (and perhaps vice versa). On the other hand, I'd think the urbanization along the entire Front Range (roughly Fort Collins to Colorado Springs) is at least as continuous as that of Wasatch Front. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

State Capitol photo

user:Editor19841 recently replaced this photo of the Colorado State Capitol building with this one. Perhaps I'm just used to the old one (which looking at it closely seems to be a little out of focus), but the new one seems almost garishly overexposed. Any other comments on this? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I really have no preference one way or another. The former is a bit out of focus, and the latter is washed out. For the time being, I am fine with either. Maybe someone could get one a little bit better. Also, I think I am going to remove my badly framed civic center image from this page. I really don't see it's purpose here. Vertigo700 23:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New page

Hey all,

I made the Diversity in Denver section its own page, as I felt it contained a lot that didn't really need to be in the main article. The new page is Diversity in Denver, Colorado.Vertigo700 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Grid system

I've been told that the inconsistency between Denver's two grid systems is because the downtown grid was designed to maximize high-rise views of the mountains -- because each building faces a corner to the mountains, two sides of the building get good views, not just one side. Can anyone remember anything to confirm this? Ken 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Frommers says it was to parallel the South Platte River. --MattWright (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Denver didn't always have high rises, and the downtown area was built before the era of high rises. --BetaCentauri 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)]

I believe MattWright is right. The downtown grid was intended to parallel the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek. This is also why the Auraria street grid is slightly different than the downtown one, since the South Platte runs at a slightly different angle and Auraria and Denver were separate towns originally. There is a lot of information about Denver streets in this book [8], which is where I remembered information from when writing the section (but I don't have a physical copy, so I did not cite it directly).

Problems with the Neighborhood map

The Neighborhood of Hale is now called Mayfair, which has its own monthly neighborhood publication. And Lowry Field is just called Lowry now.

GWatson  ^TALK 06:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For the map on this page, I used the official city of county of Denver definitions of neighborhoods. In that sense, they are completely accurate at the map on this page shows [9]. There are of course many other "neighborhoods," that are not official by the city, but are known by residents, real-estate developers or others. In my opinion, we should only use the city-defined neighborhoods in the map, because it's an official, consistent source. Vertigo700 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That map was created from data of local 2000 census, the only current reliable information I found is from: Here I'm guessing the city will make a new map sometimes after 2010, so its no big deal if the older map stays as long as its changed when a new map is made. GWatson  ^TALK 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambigious sentence

Because someone reverted back to this sentence "31.68% of the population is Hispanic or Latino of any race, giving Denver one of the highest populations of Hispanics or Latinos in the U.S." , I can only assume he or she had some kind of issue with my taking out the bolded part above. I don't know the rationale for the reversion because there was no comment in the edit summary.

What does the bolded part (which I took out) mean? In percentage terms is it true? In raw population numbers? For major cities or for all communities? You can see from List of U.S. cities with Hispanic majority populations that there are many, many communities with greater Latino population percentages than Denver's (those on the list are all 50%+, let alone 31%+). And many states have "higher populations of Hispanics or Latinos" in raw numbers (this sentence says nothing about what is being measured: cities, states, towns, what? The reader is left to guess). Texas has a "higher population of Hispanics and Latinos" in raw numbers (if not also in percentage terms) than Denver. Etc. There is also no source for the information.

There may be a true statement buried underneath the ambiguity, but until it's properly sourced and the information is fleshed out so that it's meaningful, it doesn't enhance the article. Moncrief 02:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Skyline photo at night...

I took this picture last night, but couldn't find a good place to work it into article. There are already a lot of pics there, but I'm leaving a note here in case it is useful at some point. --MattWright (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That is literally one of the best pics of Denver's skyline I've seen in a long time. Excellent work, MattWright. Editor19841 23:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --MattWright (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, but should it go inside or outside of the infobox..cause I think its almost too small if its inside of it, but I can see why we might want it to be. What does everyone else think?

Too small in the infobox, although if it actually extended to the current infobox width (which seems inordinately wide in classic skin, hmmm) it might be about right. I'll try to figure out what's up with the disconnect between the picture width and infobox width. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The current infobox template specifies its width in "ems" which differ according to the font while the image is specified as an absolute 250px. Classic skin and monobook skin (monobook is the default) use different fonts which make the width of the infobox different. I use classic skin, and in this skin the infobox is about 350px (and the image is 250px). In monobook skin the infobox ends up about 280px which means there's far less whitespace to the sides of the image. Specifying the width of the infobox in ems or pixels is currently under discussion at template:Infobox City. I think the bottom line is that the image is too small inside the infobox. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't include it in infobox because I thought it didn't quite show the skyline as well as the daytime pic and looks way to small when resized to width of infobox. I wanted to embed it centered, with a width of 512 after the second paragraph of the article, but then that would look weird for people browsing at a small width (it might overflow infobox). In the end, I couldn't find a good place for it in the article layout, which is why I just posted it to Talk: in case someone had a better idea, or for future use. --MattWright (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been to Denver once in my life and thought it was a nice city, but this picture makes it look spectacular! If you're not a professional photographer, you should be! Great pic!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westmt01 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Population figures (again)

OK, what's the deal. The 2nd paragraph says "according to 2006 Census estimates" and gives a reference to the 2005 census estimates and an estimated population that doesn't match the reference and claims "22nd largest" with a link to List of United States cities by population which has a list (from 2005 estimates) in which Denver is 27th. The metro area figure is now the 2.8M figure that I can't find anywhere else. The infobox repeats the claimed 2006 esimate for the city and includes the 2.8M metro figure. I don't know where the alleged 2006 estimates are coming from. Anyone care to straighten this out? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit was done by an anonymous IP a few edits ago. He/She also removed a political table. Just revert that edit (although Editor19841 made a couple fixes since then) to consensus figures we have discussed until someone comes up with a reason/source on Talk: page. --MattWright (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the edits were all done in the same edit. I've reverted these changes and added comments asking the figures be updated only to US Census bureau estimates. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice them either, at the time of my edits after the IP's. By the way, what ever happened to the 2006 estimates (out/not released/no info?). Also: The 2.8 figure was up in the past; it might be a DRCOG figure, I don't know. Editor19841 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The 2.8M figure is exactly 500,000 more than the Census Bureau's 2005 figure for the metro area. This seems very, very suspicious to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

List of United States cities by population says Denver is 27th. Is there a reason our page says 25th? --MattWright (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Denver is indeed the 25th largest according to the excel worksheet found [10], which our reference links to. I will fix the List of United States cities by population to reflect what should be the considered the latest and standard document in regards to U.S. city's population. Vertigo700 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

References

I've reformatted all the references using <ref> tags, see Wikipedia:Footnotes (although not using Wikipedia:Citation templates). When adding other references please use the same style. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Famous Denverites: Part 2

Does anyone think that we should either add several key people to the "Famous Denverites" section or remove/move the picture of Peña? Editor19841 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, preference being add a few key people in paragraph form describing their ties to denver and how they have contributed locally, with the main article being the list and more detail. --MattWright (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editor19841 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be far more trouble than it is worth. Who will decide who is to be on the list of the priviledged few? Sports? History? Actors? Entertainment? Politicians? etc. Who is going to constantly revert the list, as it will become a job? Who ever is in charge of deleting new names from the priviledged list, should also be responsible for placing that new name onto the Famous Denverites main page. Soapy 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What we need is just a quick intro paragraph. Something that says Denverites have contributed to society in a variety of ways including in the arts, political science, etc (as an example). Maybe put a little history (Denver's frontier status has attracted many notable residents even from the beginning on the city's history.) Then link to the list. Don't put any names, because Soapy is right, including names prejudices the page, and may cause arguments over who is and isn't on the list.Vertigo700 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point; bias need not apply. I second the motion for an intro. Editor19841 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Molly Brown? I think the list of "priviledged few should at least be "born Denverites." In reality, no one should be there, to keep the prejudices turned off. You will not make people happy this way. Soapy 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can take it off it you want. I figured since Molly Brown is historical it would be a bit less prejudiced. Plus, she had a good picture. (unsigned comment by Vertigo700)

I didn't like the paragraph that was added... The second half of it was so generic it could be said about any decent sized city. I picked 5 people who are very well known nationally or internationnally with connections to Denver and used them for the paragraph. Yes, people will try to add others, and they may need to be reverted or discussed. It can all be resolved in time on the Talk: page. Disagreements can go to a vote if compromise can't be reached. This encyclopedia doesn't work by having "one person in charge of removing or adding names." Soapy, you don't explain why you think they need to be born in Denver. John Elway is famously associated with this city, but wasn't born here, along with many other people. Most humans make their mark on this world as adults, not as children. Vertigo700, arguments and votes over tough issues are good and are what makes this encyclopedia become the best that it can. That's my opinion on the issue, but I may be outnumbered, and if so, feel free to revert my paragraph. --MattWright (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...and the can of worms is now open. Why do you get to choose the list? You do seem to forget that this is Wikipedia, where disscussion or vote will not stop future editors, five minutes after you, and whoever else, votes on who should be there. This is why I was/am in favor of just a paragraph, no names, no photos. Let's put it to the test. Keep it the way it is and let's see if people leave it alone. The latter statement does not mean I agree at all with the names that are there now. Soapy 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is not for a section to be left alone -- I would hope people edit it. I'm also not trying to enforce who is listed there. Feel free to edit, remove, add. The people I listed have extensive Wikipedia pages, which all mention Denver as having some significant role in their life. If you don't want anyone listed, we shouldn't even have a section for it and instead just keep the link under "See also" section, as has been done at Chicago. I am fine with that option as well, but do not want some watered down generic paragraph that provides no information other than a link to list of famous denverites. Keep in mind that these decisions are going to have to be made in other areas in the future. Landmarks is getting to be a ridiculous list, which will probably be broken into its own article soon. Then are we not going to list a single landmark because someone might object or want a different one listed? There is already a History of Denver, Colorado article now -- how do we decide what gets listed in the Denver article and what only gets listed on the history one? These subjective decisions will have to be made if you want an article that provides readers a good overview without overwhelming them and making them click through to read a long list of items. Lists do not make a good encyclopedia article. --MattWright (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, adding names to the Denver page, was what created the separate main page for names in the first place. Soapy 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally, I thought a brief list would work OK for a good intro. But upon further review, I've found exaclty what Soapy is saying; a can of worms. Who's to say what about whom on this page? Who get's to decide? I say; no one. My take on the whole native v. non-native thing is that the debate isn't worth our time as contributors. A Denverite is in fact, whether anyone likes it or not, a person/living thing/etc, that has or currently resides or was born in the City and County of Denver. But that is not a debate to be held here. A non-biased, neutral introductory paragraph is what we need. So, I agree with Soapy, I think we should consider ditching all the names and leaving that affair to the main article. MattWright, it's a good paragraph, but it belongs at List of famous Denverites. Editor19841 23:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with MattWright about this. It might be contentious in the short term, and may never stabilize completely, but including a short list seems like a reasonable idea. Keeping it to around five may help enforce some discipline about it. The question changes from "why shouldn't this person be added" to "who should be replaced". I don't think there's any way to make the criteria for inclusion objective, but something inherently subjective like "the five people most widely associated with Denver" seems like it could lead to a consensus list. Note that by this criteria among those currently discussed I'd include Elway, Molly Brown, and Peña (not Golda Meir or Condoleeza Rice). In my opinion it's not the level fame that's primarily important, but the degree of association with Denver. Of course, if we agree the criteria should be different, perhaps "the five most famous people with any connection to Denver" the list might be different. Including the criteria (and the limit) as comments in the article might help keep the number of changes down. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See also seems really good to me. If you look at a lot of the other city pages: Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, they just keep a bunch of extraneous lists in a see also section, which is where the list of famous denverites should go (where it already is partly), as well as landmarks, and maybe a few other sections. This way, we don't have to worry about "who's listed" and we can keep the page size down, which is currenly getting close to 50 megabites. What do you all think? Vertigo700 06:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with Rick's or Vertigo's proposal, either works for me. I also agree that a couple of the people I listed aren't highly associated with Denver, and wouldn't mind if they are changed. I just chose five off the list that I felt had some interesting connection to Denver. --MattWright (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Checking cities in Wikipedia:Featured articles, most that mention natives or residents at all have them in a separate list. I'm fine with this approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. No agument here. Soapy 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

culture, sub-articles, landmarks

So, I added a prose section for culture. Please feel free to add/change, as always. I moved the landmarks to its own page, because it really was getting unwieldy, and was a big reason why our page got over 50 kilobytes. For those with dial-up (like myself), that large of page really takes a long time to load, and it looked pretty clunky visually. I also got rid of the extended description of seasonal climate from the climate page, because I felt the sub-article needed some new information that the main-page could not provide, and just to make the page cleaner and shorter in general. Please feel free to let me know what you think, and if you all disagree with the changes, they can always be reverted. Vertigo700 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The changes I made were reverted. Does this mean people disagree with the changes, or what? I would prefer if people would comment here first before making revisions. The reasons I made the changes were as follows 1)It makes no sense to have sub-articles that contain the exact same information as the main page. Every page that has sub-articles has an introduction, or an outline of the information, not every single thing. 2)This page is getting too big. It is once again over 50 kilobytes. It often takes me (and probably others still on dial-up, which is still the majority of internet users) close to a minute (sometimes more) for the page to load. I find it silly that Colorado, with only 32 kilobytes is smaller than a city's page. It would be different if we had lots of good prose information, but a lot of space is simply taken up by unnecessary lists and pictures (especially landmarks). Most city pages (the good ones at least), do not have such sections of lists. 3) I don't think a city wikipedia page needs to contain every scrap of information and photo that exists for it. If we have sub pages, and see also sections, we can provide the reader with the information without being cluttered. All good city pages have that. If we want to be a featured page, than we need to as well. I feel strongly about this, but if others feel strongly about keeping every piece of information on the main page, please let me know and we can keep it. It didn't seem like that from some of the comments earlier, however. Vertigo700 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Prose should definitely be favored and I don't like having the lists incorporated in main article. I agree very much with your assessment of what is needed for Denver. Less lists and images, more quality prose. --MattWright (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Qwest Building v. Wells Fargo Center

Anybody have a good, and mean good, shot of the Qwest Building? The current pic of the Wells Fargo Center in the Economy section is fair, but a good, current-day shot of the Qwest, that'd be better. For a couple reasons; 1. The Qwest Building is Denver's tallest, 2. It's got a bigger rep. for corporate power. MattWright, your a great photographer... Anyhow, what does anyone think? Editor19841 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Republic Plaza is the tallest building in Denver, two meters taller than 1801 California ("the Qwest Building") - 218 vs. 216 meters, 56 vs. 52 floors.

I can try to take a pic of it sometime, don't know the best location to do that from, but will keep my eyes out. I also think the article already has more pictures in it than it should. --MattWright (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sports team logos

user:Ed g2s recently removed the sports team logos and user:Editor19841 reverted the change. The issue is whether this use of copyrighted logos is permissible as "fair use", see Wikipedia:Fair use. IANAL, but I agree with Ed g2s about this. IMO, the fair use policy basically says copyrighted sports team logos can only be used in articles about the sports teams themselves, not any other article. Wikipedia is getting to be a target for image use violations. We need to be careful about this. Comments? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Other major cities like Seattle, Chicago, New York, etc. do not use the logos either. I think the consensus has been that they are only permitted to be used on the article describing the team and that is the only real way to claim fair use. I'm fine ridding the page of them and also would prefer to see that section in prose at some point. --MattWright (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheeseburger and beat generation

Can anyone explain why the references to the invention of the cheeseburger and the "beat generation" appear in the "History" section of this article? Things more worthy of mention than these two strange inclusions happened in the 20th century in Denver. Globe Trotter 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Other editors felt they were appropriate. We could certainly use other items in this section, so please add them. --MattWright (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Being that the Beat Movement was the main influence and precursor for the entire Hippie subculture, its inclusion in the article (along with the burgers) seems very worthy of mention, as both had long echoing effects on 20th century culture. 24.9.145.124 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Population

Is the statement correct that there are 100,000 Jews in Denver? That would make 1 out of 5 residents Jewish. If it is meant to say 100,000 in the metropolitan area then this should be clarified. --70.179.119.138 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly incorrect and also uncited. Might be true for the metro area, but it is very confusing as written. Deleted until someone can provide a source. --67.190.75.72 05:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is It What I Think It Is?

Denver's 79 neighborhoods offer a variety of living experiences:

—Is what it shows under the "Denver neighborhoods" picture.

Eh? That sounds like someone's trying to advertise the city. Someone should change it. ←T•h•e R.S.J.→ 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Passed as good article

I have passed this article as a good article. The article is well referenced, nicely written, has a good lay-out with a fair amount of pictures to illustrate it. I'd perhaps remove the cheeseburger reference, not only because it's rather trivial, but also because the cheeseburger article has a somewhat different version of the story. It's also placed strangely on the timeline. Other than that, I say it is a very good article! BabyNuke 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Small City?

The article says: "The large number of sports teams in Denver in spite of its relatively small size is a result of its status as the nexus of the Rocky Mountains region."

Denver is small? Its metro area is over 2 million, ranked 22nd largerst in the country by the Census Bureau. The city proper is 554,636, ranked 24th by the Census. There are hundreds, if not thousands of cities in the country. To be 23rd or 24th largest is not to be a small city, seems to me. ..just sounded weird reading it in the article. I understand the idea -- that Denver stands out in its region since there are few if any cities of note for hundreds of miles around. But still... small city? Pfly 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Denver is hardly a small city. No debate, no question. I agree with Pfly 100%, and I'll fix this problem. Editor19841 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added this because, if you look at the statistics, Denver is the smallest city in the US that has teams from all 4 major leagues, and it is #6 in number of sports teams with 8. I was only trying to explain why. BetaCentauri 23:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Qwest Lightning photo

The new Qwest photo looks intriguing, but I'm not sure it's a very good example. I think only locals would recognize which building is the Qwest building, since the sign isn't facing the photographer, nor is it dead center or at least more center than any other building in the photo. The lightning, while cool looking, doesn't contribute to this article, in my opinion. BetaCentauri 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and again its gets to the problem of having too many photos on the page, which make the page longer to load and look cluttered. Vertigo700 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians for Denver 2008

Anyone and everyone supporting Denver's bid for the 2008 Democratic National Convention should join Wikipedians for Denver 2008! Visit User:Editor19841/Denver 2008 for more information, and post either:

[[Category:Wikipedians for Denver 2008|{{PAGENAME}}]] or
{{User:1ne/Userboxes/Denver2008}}

on your user page(s) (the userbox is shown below). Every bit of support counts, no matter if it comes from a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent (etc.), a Denverite or otherwise. Thanks. Editor19841 (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

DNC

This user is backing Denver 2008.

Added various sections

Hey everyone,

I added a few sections on here in the recent past, and it hasn't gone anywhere so I assume it's useful information. I added the media section (which could use expansion), and the telecom/tech section of the economy. I've also tweaked some links and names (i.e., adding the DIA codes).

I want opinion on this next edit: the picture of the Rockies below "culture" doesn't seem to have anything to do with the culture of the city. Delete or move?Trodaikid1983 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

probably move. Judgesurreal777 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I deleted the picture and replaced it with a picture of the DPAC. Trodaikid1983 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Denver in Pop Culture section

Is this section really necessary in the article? It's just going to get to be a long, unwieldy list of pop culture references to Denver, which doesn't really provide any new or useful facts about the city of Denver. --MattWright (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing it. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I can go either way. Some other city pages have it, and I suppose it does provide a small bit of useful information. Certainly, "The city and surrounding area has been the setting of countless movies, films and documentaries," should be cut as that provides nothing new. I also don't understand having the books in there, since they are books about Denver and I don't think would qualify as "pop culture." I think if we do keep it, each entry needs to be specific, accurate, and noteworthy. One thing I want to avoid is for the page to become some kind of Sally Field collection of "They really like me," moments of every little thing that makes Denver in any way noteworthy. Vertigo700 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think it's really useful. It makes us seem like we're reaching for something. I personally don't think it needs to be here at all. I don't think something like that really has a place in an encyclopedia. Just MHO. Trodaikid1983 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Denver is a large city -- it's going to appear in a lot of pop culture. --MattWright (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sports list looks too bulky

In fact, it doesn't look good at all. We've generally got a lot of prose on here (exceptions where lists are more informative). Do we really need to list all that stuff? Prose it or cut it back. Trodaikid1983 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with putting those items into prose or removing them. Same with list of TV stations in Denver. Lists aren't good in general and should be minimized. Encyclopedia not a place for channel listing of news stations. --MattWright (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should cut back the list in the sports section. It really looks too bulky with all those things about past, present and future events being held in Denver. Trodaikid1983 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several sports teams that are noted as no longer Denver teams. Unless they won the "Super Bowl" in their respective fields do we really need to list teams no longer associated with Denver?

Red Rocks

Two things about Red Rocks Park and Amphitheatre. First of all, the picture under the Music section calls it Denver's most famous music venue. While I believe the Amphitheatre is part of Denver's Mountain Parks System, the amphitheatre is actually located in Morrison, one of Denver's suburbs located on the outskirts of the metropolitan area and is not actually in Denver itself; this should probably be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Red Rocks isn't even mentioned in the Music section other than as a picture. If the picture stays the caption should reflect its actual location and Red Rocks should get mentioned in the article itself, otherwise the picture should be deleted. I do think it should be mentioned, rather than deleted, even if its outside of Denver proper it is a major tourist attraction and concert venue associated with the city. --The Way 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to remember is that the City and County of Denver maintains Red Rocks. Although I do agree that some mention of it's phyisical location should be provided.Trodaikid1983 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the caption to mention where Red Rocks is physically, but made sure the caption remained true in saying the CIty of Denver maintains the park.Trodaikid1983 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture Placement/Property things

Not to nitpick, but: 1.) Red Rocks is discussed in "parks and rec" and again mentioned in "Culture" with a picture. Perhaps merge? 2.) The "Dancing Ballerinas" are not actual city property ... it's owned by the Adams Mark Hotel. A better "city property" display would be the Dancing Men in front of the Plex. Suggestions? Trodaikid1983 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Geography addition...

Can the anonymous editor who re-added: Given a 250 mile radius around the city, Denver is equidistant between Los Angeles and Chicago, while simultaneously being equidistant between Seattle and New Orleans please explain what that means? What does the 250 mile radius have to do with it? Do you mean if you move Denver by up to 250 miles in one direction or another, you can have it be equidistant from these other cities? I really don't see how this is useful information for the article. --MattWright (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, while the link you provided does have some information about Denver's distance as related to other cities, it isn't exactly a reference to the added section in Geography. If you could explain that better with the proper reference information and format, it would be greatly appreciated. Vertigo700 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Get some citations. Editor19841 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Excel Grid for Climate

I created an Excel grid that is very easy to read to show climate changes in relation to the table. Should I post that, or do we want to keep the table? Trodaikid1983 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..I don't know. I'd probably want to see it first, especially since I have no real problems with the current grid. Can you post it to talk? Thanks, Vertigo700 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Denver instead of Denver, Colorado, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support this. There isn't another Denver nearly as notable as Denver, Colorada and its highly likely that when someone searches for 'Denver' they are looking for this city plus it would help create uniformity across city articles. One question, however... what does this mean for smaller, less notable cities. For example, my hometown is Decatur, Illinois. Would this stay the same or would it have to add United States to the title? This could get problematic for US cities because there are often several cities and towns with the same name, but in different states (There are 9 Decaturs, for example). I'm guessing this isn't a problem for other countries. --The Way 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Denver can't stay at "Denver, Colorado"? That is more informative and appropriate and a redirect from "Denver" already exists... --MattWright (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If the editors of Denver feel it is better to title it Denver, Colorado, they may. This survey gives editors the option to title articles about cities in the United States that require no disambiguation with titles that omit the disambiguation, much like articles about cities in the rest of the world do.--DaveOinSF 02:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Even Seattle and Los Angeles are "City/State" convention. Denver, Colorado is more accurate, and if the re-direct already exists, I think it's best to leave things as they stand. Trodaikid1983 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Names of neighborhood articles

The articles on Denver neighborhoods were not created in any systematic way, and as a result there is no consistency to their titles. For example, you have some with just the neighborhood name (e.g. LoDo and Cherry Creek Neighborhood), some which give the city with or without parentheses (e.g. City Park, Denver and Five Points (Denver)), and some which give the city and state (e.g. Golden Triangle (Denver, Colorado) and Capitol Hill, Denver, Colorado). I propose we decide on a consistent naming convention and apply it across all these articles. Thoughts? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at other city's neighborhood naming conventions, I prefer the one used by Chicago, which is basically Neighborhood, Chicago. I think that simplicity will work for Denver. San Francisco and Los Angeles both have Neighborhood, City, California, which is dislike as being too wordy. I think its pretty safe to assume that while there are other Denvers, none of them are big enough to have neighborhoods at all, much less with the same names as ours. BTW, a lot of cities also have haphazard name organization. Atlanta and New York are examples. This is probably because some neighborhood names are unique or extremely well-known as being a part of that city, so they can just be left with their names. Anyway, any other comments? Vertigo700 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Any process to get the article looking more professional and organized should be executed. I think simple listing of the neighborhood is sufficient, because as Vertigo mentioned, there aren't many Denver's the size and stature of this one, and it's rudenant to label a neighborhood, city convention. Cherry Creek, Denver ... that should be assumed, since the neighborhood is in the Denver article. It's also important to realize the differences between neighborhoods and suburbs. Suburbs should be listed as though they were their own place (i.e., Lakewood, Colorado). My .02 is take the "Denver" out and list the neighborhoods alphabetically, giving them their own article if necessary. Trodaikid1983 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I like Vertigo's suggestion, although it could cause problems in some cases, such as Cherry Creek. There is already a Cherry Creek (Denver) page, how would this be handled? Move Cherry Creek Neighborhood to "Cherry Creek, Denver" and move Cherry Creek (Denver) to "Cherry Creek, Denver (disambiguation)"? Overall, sounds like a good idea. And to answer Trodaikid1983, the neighborhoods can appear without "Denver" in the article text, but it is probably best to put Denver in the article name. You can get around it using [[Neighborhood, Denver|Neighborhood]]. What will happen if something like City Park or Washington Park branches into a park article and a neighborhood article? --MattWright (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we even need a disambiguation page for Cherry Creek, Denver. There already is a disambiguation page for just Cherry Creek and there are only 11 entries, four of which are Colorado related (It also includes Cherry Creek H.S.). I think we could just delete that disam. page and have everything go to the general one. As for the parks issue, I think we can face that hurdle when we come to it. I honestly don't think its necessary to separate them, especially since the neighborhoods are so associated with the parks they are named for. When I worked on the Civic Center page, I recognized that it needed to be separate from the Golden Triangle page, because the two are simply not related to each other enough in my mind. We can make similar judgment calls in like situations (and its not like there will really be that many). Vertigo700 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and organized the general Cherry Creek disamb. page to separate the Colorado related articles from the other ones. I think with that organization the Denver-related disamb. becomes obsolete (especially considering that not all Colorado Cherry Creek articles are exclusively the domain of the city of Denver). Vertigo700 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the usefulness of a Cherry Creek, Denver disambig page is because you may want to link to it from Cherry Creek, Denver article, rather than the generic disambiguation page. This is because people typing in Cherry Creek, Denver have already specified they want something Denver-related, but possibly they want the shopping mall or creek instead of the neighborhood. Either way, it's not a huge issue. Still think your naming idea for neighborhoods is fine. --MattWright (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus is to rename the articles to (Neighborhood Name), Denver (except in certain cases such as the Cherry Creek Neighborhood). And of course I agree that the word "Denver" should be left out in lists of neighborhoods, using piped links. If nobody objects I'm going to go ahead with those changes this weekend. But do we want to leave it as [[Cherry Creek Neighborhood]] or change it to [[Cherry Creek Neighborhood, Denver]]? ~~I vote for the latter but I'm a stickler for consistency; really either will work.~~ See below. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the latter is fine, but like I said before, I don't necessarily think we need the disambiguation page for Cherry Creek, Denver, but maybe that's just me. :) Vertigo700 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can move 'Cherry Creek Neighborhood' to 'Cherry Creek, Denver' and move 'Cherry Creek (Denver)' to 'Cherry Creek, Denver (disambiguation)'. No other item is better suited for an article titled Cherry Creek, Denver than the neighborhood. The creek extends out of Denver and the shopping mall can be titled differently. --MattWright (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with this. The creek itself flows through more than just Denver, so the current title Cherry Creek (Colorado) is the most appropriate. That leaves Cherry Creek, Denver to refer to the neighborhood. I don't think an additional db page is necessary beyond Cherry Creek, but a db template at the top of the appropriate pages will be needed. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the appropriate moves to the neighborhood pages to standardize their names. The only problems I encountered were with Auraria, because of double redirects of a previous move, and in Golden Triangle, which Wikipedia will not allow to be moved because Golden Triangle, Denver exists as a redirect page from a previous move of the article, (I believe because of plagiarizing issues with it). I sent a request to the admins at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. If there is a better way to go about that please feel free to do so. Also, I did not move Stapleton International Airport because I didn't know if it would be considered a Denver neighborhood page or not. We can always move it later once we come to a consensus on that. I also checked for double redirects, and it seems to be fine, but feel free to recheck just in case I missed any. I also changed the disamb. page on Cherry, Creek, Denver and put up the former disamb. page up for speedy deletion. Cheers, Vertigo700 06:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

are there

any cool things to do here, when you'r alive? k zz * 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You bet your Wikipedia there is. Check out some of the following links:

We're not famous for a Rocky Mountain High for nothin'. Editor19841 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the article footer from this reply. It was screwing up the text orientation. You can find it at the bottom of the article you posted to the talk page for, kzzl. --BetaCentauri 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Archival

Lets archive the discussion page. Thoughts?Trodaikid1983 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I would archive anything older than three months into six month archives. Should be pretty simple and straight-forward that way. Vertigo700 05:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

+1, I think talk pages should be archived when they reach ~100kB, the approximate maximum suggested size for articles. --BetaCentauri 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I archived the talk page based on when each topic was started and dividing them chronologically into six month periods. I hope that it looks okay to everyone. If you think another way is best, feel free to do it. Thanks, Vertigo700 02:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, although I'm a bit surprised there was that much discussion in the last six months. --BetaCentauri 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine, much better than it was. I think we should set a maximum of how many discussion points are visable (or, maybe a date range or something along those lines?) The size suggestion is good too, though. Perhaps that is more inclusive. Trodaikid1983 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Two articles about the metro area?

user:Buaidh has created Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Statistical Area and has proposed the similar existing article, Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area, be revised to cover the informal "metro area" (as distinct from the MSA as defined by the US Census Bureau). Please comment at Talk:Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Statistical Area. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of CBD article?

I was just looking at the Central Business District entry on here, and added a picture of Denver. However, we don't have an article that directly relates to our CBD, claimed to be the 10th largest in the US? I would be more than willing to write one, which would consist of notable buildings (and stats), attractions, etc... that is only specific to the area commonly called "Diagonal Denver". Thoughts? Trodaikid1983 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. It's been something I've been thinking about for a while, but I need to focus on grad school right now before I can plunge forward with writing pages. I would say you should probably just call it Central Business District, Denver, since that is what the official Denver neighborhood is called (I believe the borders are Speer Blvd/Cherry Creek, Lawrence Street, Broadway and 20th Street), but you can go ahead and note that many people consider areas outside of that neighborhood as being part of Downtown. I would definitely be willing to help edit, and add some content once you have it started. Go for it! Vertigo700 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I will start the article next week, basing it off Dallas and a few other cities that contain "downtown" entries. I'm going to get some good pictures of the buildings downtown (notable ones anyway, like 1801 California (Qwest Tower) and Republic Plaza). All the CBD articles also include information on transportation, etc... so I'll get some good stuff in there, then we can put a link somewhere to "Downtown Denver". The article will be called "Downtown Denver" but I will try and make it so that "Denver Central Business District" works too. Any help on this = appreciated! Trodaikid1983 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Northfield Stapleton light show

I deleted the following paragraph:

In 2006, Carson Williams was commissioned by Northfield Stapleton shopping area to create Symphony in Lights], a new light show in Denver for the holiday season based on the famous house lights, but on a commercial scale. Created with the help of Parker 3D, the show features over 250,000 LED lights.

In context, this reads to me nearly like a commercial advertisement. It is already mentioned, IMO more appropriately, in the Northfield Stapleton article. If sometime in the future this has become a fixture of Denver culture (like the city and county building lights), then it would be appropriate to mention it here. For now, IMO it amounts to promotion, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it reads like an ad, and at any rate is "too new" to have a place in this article. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's notable to the article (i.e., important in Denver, like that Rendez-vous Houston light show in Houston), then thore ought to be some references. If author can find some third-party, notable publications talking about it.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Denver Holidays

Anyone else grow up in Denver going to the holiday functions every year? So did I, and I think a little bit about the world-famous way we do the winter season should be noted in the article. Also, just for the sake of it, anyone have a good shot of the City and County building all lit up; perhaps for the Landmarks article? Editor19841 (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Metric?

An anonymous editor recently reversed measurements within the article so that, for example, distance is refered to in kilometers with miles in parantheses rather than vice versa. Now, I am aware most of the world is on the metric system but it seems to me that since Denver is an American city it should have miles first with the metric measurements in parentheses. This is a really minor issue and I didn't want to start an edit war so I figured I'd get other people's opinions on the matter first. --The Way 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point, and note that other American pages (i.e. The United States of America) have miles first, than kilometers. The edit is just an ongoing thing that many non-USA wikipedians have with non-metric measurements. Though I think both should be used so that all can use our page, I think that since Denver is an American city we should first use the measurements that most Americans would understand. Vertigo700 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people just do things to get a reaction. It is an American city, would someone go through and change them back to the U.S. standard. Soapy 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I have reverted these edits. Dear anonymous editor and Adric Hunter, I understand your sentiment but Americans use feet/miles, not meters/kilometers. Changing measurements on an article about an American city to metric is as ridiculous as changing measurements on an article about a non-American city to use feet/miles. If you disagree, please justify your position. Thank you. --BetaCentauri 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Transit-related pages

I've rewritten the public transit related pages to make a better distinction between RTD and its operational services, TheRide. As a result, elements of the Rail transit in metropolitan Denver page were merged into the RTD & TheRide pages; bits about FasTracks were moved to that page. I've also added pages for every station on the light rail lines. The details about the bus system should be expanded considerably, perhaps include locations of the park-n-Rides (since they're akin to light rail stations and are typically major bus route interchanges). Pictures should be forthcoming. Feedback appreciated, either here or on Talk:Regional Transportation District. I'd also appreciate some help expanding the stubs on the LRT stations so they're more up to the standard of other station pages (i.e. include details like street address, interesting local commerce or attractions, fare zone, etc). Thanks. --BetaCentauri 22:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)